Your hypocracy is pathetic. During the Bush years, for 8 years, the vitriol and disrespect and suspicion aimed at Bush was non-stop.
‘Suth up, moron.

I must say, that’s a very insightful analysis. You have pinpointed a number of assumptions that went into this, in fact hitting exactly on the main ones.

Let me see if I can address your concerns is systematic manner.

PM: “You cite the above study as evidence of the “need for” misdirection, while you yourself argue that your morals are based not on “faith” but “information.”

Perhaps I should have been clearer in the expression of said information. Given the highly evolved nature of sentient human life, it would seem to me that the only reasonable conclusion is to provide services to keep said life functioning in something close to an optimum state, in this case translating to “in good health.”

PM: “The problem is the assumption that there is a neutral way to evaluate data so as to get one, and only one, reasonable conclusion.”

There is, and that way is generally known as “mathematics”. Formulating the question is such a manner than it can be evaluated in such a manner is the more difficult task. The question here, as framed, is whether or not it is moral to provide health care for all the citizens of a modern industrialized country. Given that the U.S. is a statistical outlier when compared to every other such entity, I think there is only one reasonable conclusion: the U.S. needs to find a way to provide a reasonable level of health care for all its citizens.

PM: “By the by, “creation” is an activity of God, not of a nature that exists apart from an intelligent being, so the top quotation doesn’t make sense.”

Well, I think here we might have different definition of the word “God.” I gave a very brief outline of how sentient life evolved/was created through processes that are replicable and knowable. It is through the practice of science that such information has been obtained. Each step of the evolution is presented in a way that anyone can test the data for themselves and achieve the same result.

PM: “Everyone has a lens through which they evaluate data, a worldview as they say. There is no getting around this. This is one of the chief insights of postmodern philosophy…there is no single and neutral, even “scientific” way to view information.”

There is, however, a way to compare said worldviews. What we do know is that *everyone* processes information through these lenses and it is my argument that by comparing these lenses, we can more closely approximate the objective truth of a statement or proposition.

PM: “I’m not sure what ‘the supernatural religions’ are, but they probably do not speak in the same voice on anything.”

The supernatural religions would be those that declare things which are supernatural to be real. Things that defy the laws of physics and biology.

PM: “All of the monotheistic religions were conceived before (a) the modern nation state existed and (b) before anyone had a notion that part of the government’s duty was to provide health care.”

Indeed. They all do, however, share the concept of empathy and service to one’s fellow man as a divine act. They also share the concept that God, as it were, exists in each and every one of us, and therefore each and every one of us is deserving of compassion and fair treatment.

PM: “From a Christian perspective, there is in the Bible a tradition of healing and concern for the afflicted, but this by no means easily transitions, today, into Obama’s health care plan. Perhaps it does. But certainly it is not, as you suggest, a settled question.”

I would consider it a settled question (obviously) as I don’t see how anyone could argue that a system which casts so many people to the side of the road to fend for themselves to be anything resembling the Christian ideal for how one should treat their fellow humans. I’ve yet to see anyone make a religious argument against providing health care. I’ve seen a number of economic ones, but nothing in the spiritual realm.

Is the current plan perfect? Obviously not. Would it be an improvement upon our current system and be seen as progress towards that ideal? I think so.

PM: “And how, exactly, do we get morality from “nature.” Is this the law of the jungle?”

No, not the law of the jungle. As I feel that humans and all our conceptions (including morality) came from Nature (through the processes outlined above), I don’t see from whence else it could come.

Thanks for your comment, and I’m curious to see where this conversation might lead. I would hope it leads to understanding, and perhaps some form of agreement, so let’s try and keep it civil.

peace.
-RPN

“As mentioned previously, my moral foundation is grounded not in faith in the supernatural, but in the preponderous amount of qualified information we now have regarding the natural world and it’s wondrous creations [2]. ”

You cite the above study as evidence of the “need for” misdirection, while you yourself argue that your morals are based not on “faith” but “information.”

The problem is the assumption that there is a neutral way to evaluate data so as to get one, and only one, reasonable conclusion. By the by, “creation” is an activity of God, not of a nature that exists apart from an intelligent being, so the top quotation doesn’t make sense.

Everyone has a lens through which they evaluate data, a worldview as they say. There is no getting around this. This is one of the chief insights of postmodern philosophy…there is no single and neutral, even “scientific” way to view information.

As to the following quote:
“For those with a moral foundation in the supernatural religions, the question of whether or not health care should be provided to all fellow citizens was decided long ago. The question now is only how to make it more efficient.”

Quite simply, no. This has not been decided now or long ago. I’m not sure what ‘the supernatural religions’ are, but they probably do not speak in the same voice on anything. All of the monotheistic religions were conceived before (a) the modern nation state existed and (b) before anyone had a notion that part of the government’s duty was to provide health care. From a Christian perspective, there is in the Bible a tradition of healing and concern for the afflicted, but this by no means easily transitions, today, into Obama’s health care plan. Perhaps it does. But certainly it is not, as you suggest, a settled question.

And how, exactly, do we get morality from “nature.” Is this the law of the jungle?